This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Hello, my name is ImperialMajority and I am appealing a block request I received on 29 March 2023. I'd like to start off by saying I have only made edits in good faith, I have never and will never conduct vandalism of any kind or violate Wikipedia's policies, this is evident in my contributions log. Unrelated to this, I have been questioned regarding my participation of AfDs of which I say that I am heavily interested in the topic of notability; thus, I frequently participate in them. Secondly, I use a free, residential proxy provided by a VPN to remain anonymous online; therefore, it may seem that I was related to another blocked user, User:Komskie, however, I am not. I am exclusively here on Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia and not to conduct vandalism or break any of Wikipedia's policies. I am not a sock puppet although it may seem like it due to my IP address being used maliciously by another user. I have contributed to Wikipedia over 250 times during the past week when I initially created my account. Therefore, given the reasoning behind this block, I do not understand why I should not be unblocked—I only am here to contribute to both articles and the community respectively. I accept the fact that if I am blocked, I will not attempt to dispute it or create a new account. I will, however, be disappointed that I could not contribute more. ImperialMajority (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
My use of the checkuser tool, and my review of your contributions to date, make me very confident that you are indeed the same user who previously edited under the usernames Ericwikis and Komskie. As such, I am declining this unblock request, and I am revoking your talk page access inline with the block on the Ericwikis account. See WP:UTRS for the options that are available to you now. GirthSummit (blether)10:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bonadea was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
It doesn't look like this is independently notable – Facebook and Instagram mention the paid badge thing, and there doesn't seem to be a lot more to say about it right now, than that it exists.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Meta Verified and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, ImperialMajority!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! bonadeacontributionstalk17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense articles
Hey there! Thanks so much for bringing nonsense articles like Sakana's Memes to someone's attention. Instead of WP:AfD, though, things are total nonsense should be tagged for Speedy deletion. It's a timesaver for everyone, and will generally get things like that removed faster.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Rosalie Mouakassa for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hello! ImperialMajority,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! LizRead!Talk!05:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ImperialMajority,
If you have questions about Wikipedia's policies and practices, the Teahouse is a great place to go to get a second opinion. It's better than trying to school editors who have been working on the project for many years. Going after veteran editors in a hostile manner can sometimes lead to a temporary loss of editing privileges so I urge you to try to be more collegial with your fellow editors. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!05:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators:Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
User:Netherzone, I am not a sock puppet. This block is false, and I assume you're making this assumption through my IP address which is a residential proxy provided by a free virtual private network (VPN) I use. I don't understand why you would make such a baseless claim without any sufficient evidence to back it up. I've only made edits in good faith as shown on my contributions log except for a few very minor mistakes which I have since learned from and correct. ImperialMajority (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not block you, an administrator did, however I have found your behavior to be questionable. You have not even been here a month, and you are heavily leaning into AfDs and are obviously not a new user. Why did you not answer my previous inquiry regarding other accounts you may have used, but instead simply deleted it from your talk page? Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I participate in AfDs because I am heavily interested in the topic of notability. As I mentioned in my initial message, I use a proxy provided by a free VPN service every time I use Wikipedia; thus, other users that have conducted vandalism may have used it as well. Therefore, I see no reason as to why I am blocked, and other information such as my browser's user agent of which I am not sure is included in sock puppet investigations, is not applicable here since the same records are used by thousands of others. ImperialMajority (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your "but open proxies!" excuse is a red herring when the sock account you claim you are completely unrelated to is making the sameedits as you. In addition, the technical evidence does not support your contention that you are separate individuals.-- Ponyobons mots23:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD process is not exclusive to me, anyone can do it. I have never nominated the article of Eric Blackburn Bradbury for deletion, the article of which I nominated was Rene Van Hulle. Additionally, this is only one of my nominations—I have tagged multiple articles for deletion which were vandalism or did not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. For example, I tagged [2] for deletion because it was poorly written and the subject was not notable. However, I also contributed to the page by adding an infobox and multiple other corrections. Once again, I am here to build an encyclopedia not conduct vandalism or break any of Wikipedia's policies. ImperialMajority (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I wasn't harrassing you or threatening you with a block in my comment above. I was trying to give you advice on how to get along better with your fellow editors and you were attacking one of the most experienced editors on the project. That's not a successful approach for a new editor to take and I was trying to advise you to stop, which you did. LizRead!Talk!03:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I’ll have to repeat myself again. I participated in multiple AfDs during the first two weeks of my account being created. I did not participate in them because another user did, I participated in them based off of Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. And I particularly participated in those AfDs which were clearly not notable for a Wikipedia article. I have successfully nominated several articles for deletion based off of those guidelines. Not only that but I was completely unaware of the fact that Komskie participated in them.
You still have no evidence of me breaking any of Wikipedia’s policies. Like I said, I use a free VPN to remain anonymous online—I will keep repeating until you understand.
Finally, you requested an administrator to preform a check user action on my account for participating in multiple AfDs? Do you know that anyone can participate in AfDs no matter their account age? ImperialMajority (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 10 years and familiar with the rules. I asked a checkuser to check your account, and others, because your editing had a suspicious pattern, very, very few new editors dive into participating in multiple AFDs. It's not that you CAN'T participate it's just very unusual behavior and drew my attention. I asked about other editors who also had this pattern, not just you. What you seem to be ignoring is that I was right about you, that your account should be checked because you are a sockpuppet. And should you create more sockpuppets that have this pattern of editing, expect for those to be checked, too. This is all I have to say, good luck off Wikipedia because you are very unlikely to be unblocked. Your denials ring hollow. LizRead!Talk!03:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
